PTSD

The plaintiff sued the police service, the police services board, the chief of police, and three uniformed officers for battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution arising from a welfare check in the early morning hours of November 23, 2014.

Officers responded to a 911 call from a woman in the plaintiff's bathroom and, after the plaintiff pushed an officer, arrested him and used force to bring him under control.

The court found the plaintiff not to be a credible witness, identifying numerous inconsistencies between his testimony, his prior statements, and the objective medical evidence.

The court accepted the officers' account that the plaintiff initiated physical contact, that only necessary force was used in effecting the arrest, and that the officers entered lawfully.

Judgment was granted to the defendants.

The appellant pleaded guilty to fraud after failing to declare over $50,000 in earnings and COVID-19 benefits while receiving Ontario Works assistance, collecting approximately $16,000 to which she was not entitled.

She received a six-month conditional sentence and a restitution order.

On appeal, the appellant sought to set aside her guilty plea, arguing it was involuntary due to mental health conditions and uninformed because she was unaware those conditions might have provided a defence.

The Court of Appeal found the plea was voluntary, as the record showed active participation in the year-long process leading to the plea, and informed, as the appellant failed to establish subjective prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

Sentencing of a military veteran found guilty of three counts of assaulting his ex-wife on separate occasions in 2020 and 2022, and one count of mischief.

The court found that the accused's 20 years of Canadian Forces service, including multiple combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan as a Special Forces member, his documented traumatic brain injuries and PTSD, and the significant collateral consequences of a conviction on his military career and veteran benefits, constituted exceptional mitigating circumstances.

The court held that the accused's moral responsibility was lessened by service-related concussions and PTSD.

Despite the seriousness of intimate partner violence and the predominance of denunciation and deterrence in such cases, the court granted a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding that a custodial sentence was unnecessary in these unusual circumstances.

The respondent, Kevin Ross Blainey, brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation.

The applicant, Dawn Marie Blainey a.k.a.

Dawn Marie Demeter, sought to push back the spousal support review and claim retroactive child support.

The court found no material change in circumstances to vary the spousal support review or grant retroactive child support.

The court granted the termination of spousal support effective July 7, 2022, finding the applicant had failed to prove continued entitlement and had received sufficient support for fifteen years, noting her financial mismanagement and the lack of credible evidence regarding her PTSD impacting her ability to work.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Rafik Yasso, to undergo independent medical examinations (IMEs) by a neuropsychologist and a physiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed, citing past negative experiences with IME scheduling and the triggering of his anxiety/PTSD.

The court found that the defendant had a procedural and substantive entitlement to these examinations.

Despite the plaintiff's past difficulties, the court determined there was no compelling reason preventing his participation and that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without responding medical evidence outweighed the plaintiff's inconvenience.

The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the IMEs, with no costs awarded due to shared responsibility for the difficulties.

The offender, Ryan Foster, pleaded guilty to three convenience store robberies involving weapons and gratuitous violence.

The Crown sought a 9-year global sentence and a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO).

The defence sought a 7-year global sentence (18 months further custody) and a 5-6 year LTSO.

The court imposed an 8-year global sentence, resulting in 18 months further custody, and a 7-year LTSO.

The judge emphasized general and specific deterrence, while also considering the offender's mental health issues (PTSD, ASPD) and potential for rehabilitation, recommending he serve his remaining sentence at a correctional and treatment centre.

Eduardo Bohorquez and Qasim Siddiqi were found guilty by a jury of sexual assault with another person contrary to s. 272(1)(d) of the Criminal Code.

The court was tasked with imposing sentence.

The offenders, sexual predators, lured a 19-year-old complainant, S., to Bohorquez's home for non-consensual sexual activity, which they video recorded.

The court rejected the offenders' claims of consent or honest but mistaken belief in consent, emphasizing the power imbalance and the complainant's fear.

The impact on the victim was severe, leading to PTSD and a suicide attempt.

Bohorquez was identified as the leader and more aggressive participant, while Siddiqi was an enthusiastic follower.

The court considered sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, noting the aggravated nature of the offence.

Bohorquez was sentenced to 6 years and 4 months imprisonment, and Siddiqi to 3 years and 7 months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The father and paternal grandmother brought a mid-trial motion to suspend spousal support payments to the self-represented mother due to her repeated and largely uncorroborated medical absences, which significantly delayed a protracted family trial concerning custody, access, and support.

The court found the mother's explanations for delays insufficient and noted the financial prejudice to the father, who was unlikely to be reimbursed for overpayments.

The motion was granted, temporarily suspending ongoing spousal support and limiting arrears enforcement, while also suspending the mother's child support obligations, to incentivize timely completion of the trial.

Christopher Husbands, facing a retrial for murder and aggravated assault stemming from the Toronto Eaton Centre shooting, applied to exclude viva voce evidence or prior testimony of a 13-year-old victim and his family.

The defence argued that given the accused's admissions and the live issues at trial (specifically, a Not Criminally Responsible defence based on PTSD), the prejudicial impact of such emotional testimony would outweigh its probative value.

The Crown opposed, suggesting the evidence would balance sympathy for the accused.

The court allowed the defence's application, ruling that the evidence of the victim and his family would be presented via agreed statements of fact, read to the jury and filed as exhibits, rather than through live testimony or prior audio, as the latter would be highly prejudicial without significant probative value on the contentious issues.

The defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a further examination for discovery, arguing that his psychological condition had substantially deteriorated since the initial discovery.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting that any changes were merely in symptoms, not the underlying condition, and that further examination was unnecessary given the production of updated medical records.

The court found that the plaintiff's post-discovery diagnosis of PTSD, suicidal ideations, and admission to hospital on a Form 1 constituted a substantial deterioration and exceptional circumstances warranting a further examination.

The defendant brought two motions: one to compel the plaintiff to re-attend for oral discovery and another for security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed both.

The court ordered the plaintiff to complete her discovery via video conference due to medical reasons, with shared costs.

The court also granted the security for costs motion, finding the plaintiff ordinarily resident outside Ontario, and ordered $15,000 in security for future costs, payable in tranches.

No costs were awarded for the motions.

Christopher Husbands, facing a retrial for murder and aggravated assault, asserted a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) defence based on mental disorder automatism due to PTSD.

The defence applied to exclude expert references to Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) and to limit references to malingering.

The court dismissed both applications, ruling that ASPD could be referenced, with limitations on propensity aspects, focusing on its manipulation, malingering, and deception components relevant to the NCR defence.

The court also allowed Crown experts to refer to malingering concerns, emphasizing its relevance to the NCR issue and providing jury instructions to distinguish it from the presumption of innocence regarding the elements of the offence.

The applicant mother sought to suspend the respondent father's supervised access to their 12-year-old daughter and for security for costs.

The father had filed a Motion to Change seeking to enforce existing access orders or obtain unsupervised access, but failed to properly amend his pleadings or adhere to court timelines.

The court struck the father's Motion to Change as an abuse of process and, finding a material change in circumstances due to the father's harassing and threatening behavior and its detrimental impact on the child's mental health, granted the mother's request to suspend access.

The court also imposed conditions on the father for any future access motions and ordered him to pay outstanding and future costs.

The appellant appealed from orders made over ten years prior determining equalization, child support, and spousal support in a family law proceeding.

The appellant had failed to appear at trial in 2007 and at a subsequent motion to set aside the trial order in 2008.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence demonstrating the appellant's serious mental health issues, including PTSD and major depressive disorder, which rendered her incapable of attending the proceedings.

The court found that the appellant's absence was excused and that procedural fairness required setting aside the trial and motion orders.

The court ordered a new trial to determine the issues of equalization and support, set aside a garnishment order, and required the respondent to return garnished funds with interest.

The plaintiff sued police officers and the London Police Services Board for negligent investigation, false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights (warrantless entry), excessive force, and negligent transport, seeking damages for injuries sustained during arrest and transport.

The court dismissed claims for negligent investigation, false imprisonment, excessive force, and negligent transport.

However, it found a breach of the plaintiff's s. 8 Charter rights due to the officers' warrantless entry into his home, which was deemed to be in bad faith.

Damages were awarded for psychological injuries (PTSD and depression) causally linked to the incident, and for vindication and deterrence of the Charter breach, totaling $32,500.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' statement of claim, or in the alternative, for leave to file a statement of defence, arguing that the action was barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) and section 111(2) of the Pension Act.

The plaintiffs, including a former RCMP Staff Sergeant, sought damages for intentional torts, breach of contract, and Charter violations arising from alleged harassment and assault during her service, for which she had already received a disability pension for PTSD.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claims were entirely barred, particularly for damages not covered by the pension, claims for events after the initial injury, and Charter claims.

The court also found that section 111(2) of the Pension Act did not require a further stay as the plaintiff was not seeking to review or re-assess her pension.

The plaintiff brought two negligence actions: one against the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and its driver for a bus door incident, and another against the City of Toronto for a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk.

The court dismissed both actions, finding no negligence on the part of the defendants and significant credibility issues with the plaintiff regarding his injuries, pain, and efforts to return to work.

The court also found that the plaintiff's alleged psychological injuries were not causally linked to the TTC accident or were too remote.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for three defendants (Ruby, Louis, and Sylvia Kakoutis), the return of a $10,000 deposit, and the removal of certain internet postings.

The court ordered defendant Louis Kakoutis to undergo a mental examination under section 105(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that he had put his mental state in issue through his counterclaim.

The court declined to appoint a litigation guardian for Ruby and Sylvia Kakoutis due to a lack of current medical evidence and refused to order the removal of internet postings, citing a lack of jurisdiction in the current proceeding.

The return of the deposit was deferred pending resolution of the litigation guardian issue.

Following a 19-day trial, the accused was convicted of 60 firearms and weapons offences, including possession of prohibited and restricted firearms with readily accessible ammunition, breach of prohibition orders, unsafe storage of firearms, and possession of firearms with removed serial numbers.

The accused, a former RCMP officer and convicted gun trafficker on federal parole, was arrested after police executed a high-risk search warrant and seized 67 firearms, prohibited devices, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and explosives from his residence.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years 9 months (resulting in 6 years after pre-trial custody credit), with consecutive sentences for breach of prohibition orders.

The court also granted a 3-month sentencing remission as a remedy for the accused's unlawful detention for 15 days without being brought before a judicial officer, which constituted an abuse of process and breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assault simplicitor under s. 266 of the Criminal Code and the resulting sentence of four months’ imprisonment and probation.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, improperly shifted the burden of proof, and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework in evaluating defence evidence.

The appeal court held that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, did not misapprehend the evidence, and did not shift the burden of proof, and therefore dismissed the conviction appeal.

However, the sentencing judge committed an error in principle by improperly discounting rehabilitation and effectively treating the accused’s decision to proceed to trial as indicative of a lack of remorse.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the custodial term was reduced to 75 days to be served intermittently.